Mark Levin: The GOP should move to have Slaughter expelled from the House

posted at 6:28 pm on March 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop, a tribute to the Madisonian genius who decided that Bill A — which would affect one-sixth of the American economy — can be “deemed” passed without a separate vote if Bill B is pushed through. So byzantine has the procedural framework become that I’m not sure if Pelosi’s still planning on using it. I thought not when I read Ed’s post earlier, but what about this bit from Politico on the Dems’ meeting this morning?

In addition, it looks like House Democrats won’t have to vote directly on a Senate bill they really don’t like. The speaker hasn’t made a final decision, but she told her rank-and-file during the meeting that the plan now is to craft a rule that would “deem” the Senate bill passed once they approve the package of fixes.

Apparently they are going to use it, albeit with the knowledge that Obama can only sign (and must sign) the underlying Senate bill, not the “fix,” before Reid proceeds to reconciliation. Which means that, for probably the first time in U.S. history, the president will be signing into law a bill that never received its own vote on the House floor. The “what if a Republican did it?” meme is overused, but clear your mind and try to imagine the media reaction if the Frist/Hastert Congress tried something like this for, oh, say, social security reform. If ever you’re tempted to agree with idiots on the left who think the press is balanced, let that thought experiment be your corrective.

As for Levin’s idea: Yes, of course the vote will fail along party lines. So what? The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is. The media simply will not make this an issue unless Republicans drag them to it kicking and screaming, so start dragging.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Your focus on the Yeas and Nays is a red herring, and deliberately misleading. Yes, laws are passed with a voice vote, too, but they are passed, not deemed to have been passed without any vote. The Slaughter plan ignores the following clause of Article 1, Section 7, which says that the kind of bill the President may sign into law is:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate

I should point out here once again for you that passed means passed, not deemed to have been passed without a vote.

You are missing something very important here. There is a line above and below your argument. Rules of debate within the organization is below the line. Passage of a bill is above the line. The House can decide whatever they want in the way they conduct something, but they can’t pass a bill with rules of debate. They have to vote on a bill to pass it.

The only way we are ever going to get a hearing on High Crimes and Misdemeanors is if the MSM wakes up and reports it. I’m a New Yorker and I’m always taken aback about how little anything I read on line is ever, ever reported in any of the MSM outlets. If the majority of the American public doesnt know whats going on, there will never be an impeachment.

Your focus on the Yeas and Nays is a red herring, and deliberately misleading. Yes, laws are passed with a voice vote, too, but they are passed, not deemed to have been passed without any vote. The Slaughter plan ignores the following clause of Article 1, Section 7, which says that the kind of bill the President may sign into law is:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate
I should point out here once again for you that passed means passed, not deemed to have been passed without a vote.

Emperor Norton on March 12, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I take exception to you suggesting that I’m deliberately misleading anyone here. I posted what I knew would be an unpopular opinion, and prefaced it by saying that we’re on the same team.

What I’m saying is that:
A) There is plenty of precedent for bills passing by way of passing another bill without a direct vote. It happens quite frequently, actually.
B) There is precedent for using self-executing rules in the House. It’s a cheap, stupid, chicken**** way of passing a bill, but it’s entirely possible under the Standing Rules.

You are missing something very important here. There is a line above and below your argument. Rules of debate within the organization is below the line. Passage of a bill is above the line. The House can decide whatever they want in the way they conduct something, but they can’t pass a bill with rules of debate. They have to vote on a bill to pass it.

Your argument looks good on paper, but logically, it’s a canard.

Tennman on March 12, 2010 at 8:38 PM

You’re incorrect. One can construct a self-executing rule under the Standing Rules of the House that deems anything one wants should the rule pass.

The only time a Roll Call Vote is constitutionally required is when either house is attempting to override a presidential veto.

Bills pass without roll calls all the damn time.

wv619 on March 12, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Well, first I don’t believe that’s entirely true. Article I, Section 5, clause 3: “the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.” In the Senate that’s, what, 11 guys? There are enough Republicans in the House to require a roll call vote.

That aside, I think you miss the point. Vote on a rule is not the same as a vote on a bill. And while self-executing provisions do have precedent, that precedent is limited to things that are already laws. This is not the case here.

You said the bill that will be passed is the Senate version and it will have been voted on by both houses. OK…so when was/will be the House vote on the bill?

You’re incorrect. One can construct a self-executing rule under the Standing Rules of the House that deems anything one wants should the rule pass.

wv619 on March 12, 2010 at 11:51 PM

You’re confusing the rules of debate with the actual requirements of bill passage. Article I absolutely grants power to both houses to set the rules for debate. But that’s not what’s happening here. The rules for debate are distinct from the requirement for a bill passage. So Tennman is actually correct. Rules govern how a bill is handled prior to a vote for passage. It’s not permissable to substitute a debate rule for a passage vote.

You’re conflating about three or four disparate things that don’t really have anything to do with one another, and completely missing the point that there is no Constitutional requirement for any bill to have a direct vote, except when a veto override is being attempted.

First, one fifth of 100 isn’t 11, it’s 20.
Second, if the Question is never put, and is instead circumvented by a self-executing rule, the GOP will never get the chance to request a roll call vote. The Questions before the House are almost completely at the whim of the Speaker.
Third, you can’t self-execute something that’s already law. That doesn’t make sense.
Lastly, if the House uses the Slaughter Solution to deem the bill to have passed the House, it is considered passed. End of story. They don’t HAVE to vote on it.

Where are the votes on the eleventy billion resolutions, technical corrections bills, military appointees, and other miscellany in the Senate?

They don’t exist, because they were passed without a formally recorded Roll Call Vote. It happens every day Congress is in session.

RESOLVED, that when the House shall have adopted H. Res. xxxx (The Rule for the reconciliation bill), the House shall be deemed to have concurred in the Senate amendment to H.R. xxxx (The Senate HC Bill).

The actual text of the self-executing portion of the Rule would look something like that.

You’re conflating about three or four disparate things that don’t really have anything to do with one another, and completely missing the point that there is no Constitutional requirement for any bill to have a direct vote, except when a veto override is being attempted.

Article I describes the legislative process quite neatly. And it does require votes on bills.

First, one fifth of 100 isn’t 11, it’s 20.

One fifth of a quorum.

A Senate quorum isn’t 100. It’s 51.

Second, if the Question is never put, and is instead circumvented by a self-executing rule, the GOP will never get the chance to request a roll call vote. The Questions before the House are almost completely at the whim of the Speaker.

And since there was no vote on the bill itself but on a reconcilation measure which is meaningless since there’s no existing law to amend in the first place, you run afoul of the whole “I’m Just A Bill” thing.

I think you misunderstand the process. What’s being talked about here is the passage of a reconciliation measure. Such things are to amend existing law. However, there’s no existing law to amend. So Pelosi wants to create a rule that says “passage of the reconcilation measure means the Senate bill is passed.” However, you can’t pass a bill via a rule because rules are there to set the terms for debate, not to create policy.

Lastly, if the House uses the Slaughter Solution to deem the bill to have passed the House, it is considered passed. End of story. They don’t HAVE to vote on it.

Incorrect, because you can’t have a bill passed by a rule. The underlying Senate bill needs to have its own vote and be signed into law before a reconciliation measure can be passed. THAT’S the end of the story. What’s going on here is, in the words of Yuval Levin, an attempt to amend a law that doesn’t exist by passing a bill without voting on it.

Where are the votes on the eleventy billion resolutions, technical corrections bills, military appointees, and other miscellany in the Senate?

They don’t exist, because they were passed without a formally recorded Roll Call Vote. It happens every day Congress is in session.

You should look into the concept of “unanimous consent.” For votes on mundane things the rules allow passage “without objection.” Basically that means unless a member stands up and says “whoa, I want to debate this” the vote is considered unanimous and recorded as such. It’s not the same things as an attempt to pass a bill without having a vote on it.

wv619 on March 13, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Sadly, no.

RESOLVED, that when the House shall have adopted H. Res. xxxx (The Rule for the reconciliation bill), the House shall be deemed to have concurred in the Senate amendment to H.R. xxxx (The Senate HC Bill).

The actual text of the self-executing portion of the Rule would look something like that.

A rule setting the terms for debate cannot substitute for a vote on the actual bill. Debate is distinct from passage. Similarly you can’t have a reconciliation measure without existing law to amend.

Holy crap! I’m no lawyer, but I thought “reconciliation” was for revenue. I also thought that all laws for spending and revenue MUST originate in the House. I also thought that those laws required a vote required and recorded by every member of BOTH houses. Am I missing something or is Obama and Nancy (and Slaughter) pulling a fast one?

Hard to believe the Dems are so desperate to save Oblahblah’s butt, they’re willing to create a Constitutional crisis. None of this will hold up in court. In the end, it will all be “deemed” unconstitutional anyway.

It would be better for everyone (including the politicians up for re-election) if they scrapped Barry’s Big Fascist Medical System, passed Grayson’s “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” remove the anti-trust exemption for insurance cos, pass tort reform and allow people to buy across state lines. That way, pretty much everyone is happy. As it stands now, everyone hates this “reform” but CONgress and the lobbyists.

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
–Mark Twain

Article I describes the legislative process quite neatly. And it does require votes on bills

Where? All it says is “Passed” or “Approved,” not “Voted on.” Excepting the case of veto override, where a Roll Call Vote is required.

A Senate quorum isn’t 100. It’s 51.

The Constitution actually says one-fifth of those present, so technically we’re both wrong. It could be any number from 10 to 20.

And since there was no vote on the bill itself but on a reconcilation measure which is meaningless since there’s no existing law to amend in the first place, you run afoul of the whole “I’m Just A Bill” thing.

No, you don’t, since the vote to pass the Senate bill would actually be the vote on the RULE for debate on the reconciliation bill, not the vote to approve the reconciliation bill. Once the rule is approved, the Senate bill is deemed passed, and it’s enrolled and transmitted to the WH.

I think you misunderstand the process. What’s being talked about here is the passage of a reconciliation measure. Such things are to amend existing law. However, there’s no existing law to amend. So Pelosi wants to create a rule that says “passage of the reconcilation measure means the Senate bill is passed.” However, you can’t pass a bill via a rule because rules are there to set the terms for debate, not to create policy.

Again, the vote that would pass the Senate bill by rule is the vote on the RULE for the reconciliation measure, NOT THE VOTE TO PASS THE RECONCILIATION MEASURE.

Incorrect, because you can’t have a bill passed by a rule. The underlying Senate bill needs to have its own vote and be signed into law before a reconciliation measure can be passed. THAT’S the end of the story. What’s going on here is, in the words of Yuval Levin, an attempt to amend a law that doesn’t exist by passing a bill without voting on it.

Says who? Certainly not the Constitution in Article I, Section 7. The Constitution requires it be “Passed” or “Approved” not “Voted on by the yeas and nays.” If I wanted to pass a Rule that says H.R. 345346 would be passed the first time someone said “TACO” on the House floor, that’s perfectly permissible.

You should look into the concept of “unanimous consent.” For votes on mundane things the rules allow passage “without objection.” Basically that means unless a member stands up and says “whoa, I want to debate this” the vote is considered unanimous and recorded as such. It’s not the same things as an attempt to pass a bill without having a vote on it.

I know damn good amd well what UC is. It’s still not the fabled Reorded Roll Call Vote that you’re hung up on. And actually, asking for UC PRECISELY IS trying to pass a bill without voting on it.

A rule setting the terms for debate cannot substitute for a vote on the actual bill. Debate is distinct from passage. Similarly you can’t have a reconciliation measure without existing law to amend.

1) You’re making that up, because it’s not in the Constitution or in the Standing Rules of either Chamber.
2) I covered this. They won’t be voting on the passage of the reconciliation measure. They’ll vote on the Rule.

Well I guess SCOTUS will just have to rule on this and give the President something else to whine about in his next State of the Disunion…

JohnAGJ on March 13, 2010 at 8:45 AM

Obama has been attacking SCOTUS recently precisely because they can derail the whole thing.

A bill does not become law if the House never votes for it. These things are called Constitutional Crises. The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, set up a government structure where when 2 branches of government got into a pissing contest, the third branch could settle the dispute. In this case, the Executive and the Senate are trying to force the House to do something it can’t do. Thus, this silly ‘let’s call it law without voting on it’ proposition.

Empiric evidence says again and again that Dems are not expected to stick to the ethical path so no one is surprised when they don’t. The GOP is though, so much is made when they don’t. If you take this point of view down to bare bones what it says is eveyone knows and are not surprised when the Democrats are crooked because they are expected to be. Scarey isn’t it! The Party of Crooked.

The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is.

Doesn’t work.

I think it may be time to execute the will of the people by force. Perhaps they would get the message if a crowd of, say, 50,000 angry citizens stormed the Capitol building, physically picked up Louis Slaughter and Nancy Pelosi, and carried them from the chambers if they persist in this vicious distortion of the law-making process.

I honestly believe that the Democrats’ clear contempt for legislative process may cross the line into the sort of lawlessness that requires just such an impromptu citizen referendum in Congress. Don’t you?

Where? All it says is “Passed” or “Approved,” not “Voted on.” Excepting the case of veto override, where a Roll Call Vote is required.

Let me guess…you’re a Ronulan. And no, that isn’t a compliment. There’s plain reference to votes for and against the bill. Bill. Singular. Not “rule deeming a bill passed upon vote of a different bill.” The intent is clear to all except those who want to try and prove their intellectual detachment by saying “well, I guess the sky *could* be considered green….”

I’ll also point out there’s a difference between a “roll call vote” (which is a voting process) and THE roll call of the vote (which is the list of yeas and nays). I referenced the latter. You are stuck on the former which is irrelevant to the discussion.

The Constitution actually says one-fifth of those present, so technically we’re both wrong. It could be any number from 10 to 20.

No, you’re wrong and I’m absolutely correct. The chamber cannot conduct business without a quorum *present*. No vote can be held without a quorum, therefore no roll call can be requested with less than one fifth of a quorum.

No, you don’t, since the vote to pass the Senate bill would actually be the vote on the RULE for debate on the reconciliation bill, not the vote to approve the reconciliation bill. Once the rule is approved, the Senate bill is deemed passed, and it’s enrolled and transmitted to the WH.

No, the vote on the rule is the vote on the rule. The vote on the reconciliation measure is the vote on the reconciliation measure. Neither can be substituted for an actual vote on the underlying bill. “Deemed passed” is not synonymous with “passed.” A rule cannot pass a bill. Only a vote can.

Again, the vote that would pass the Senate bill by rule is the vote on the RULE for the reconciliation measure, NOT THE VOTE TO PASS THE RECONCILIATION MEASURE.

Putting that in all caps doesn’t make it any more true. The allowable reasons and purposes for the use of rules are clear…they set the terms for debate. They do not enable passage of policy. The vote on the rule is the vote on the rule. That’s lovely. But the rule cannot substitute for a vote on the bill itself, because the rule can only speak to debate and not bill passage.

Says who? Certainly not the Constitution in Article I, Section 7. The Constitution requires it be “Passed” or “Approved” not “Voted on by the yeas and nays.” If I wanted to pass a Rule that says H.R. 345346 would be passed the first time someone said “TACO” on the House floor, that’s perfectly permissible.

Then you either need to take ConLaw or get your money back, because you’re simply incorrect. And you also need to note that the votes you reference, the ones that, yes, are required, are on the *Bill.* A rule is not a Bill.

I know damn good amd well what UC is. It’s still not the fabled Reorded Roll Call Vote that you’re hung up on. And actually, asking for UC PRECISELY IS trying to pass a bill without voting on it.

Wow, so defensive. Tells me you actually didn’t know or had a misconception. Such things are done to expedite routine votes that have no controversy. Trying to say accepting unanimous consent is the same as not voting is, well, an interesting argument.

1) You’re making that up, because it’s not in the Constitution or in the Standing Rules of either Chamber.
2) I covered this. They won’t be voting on the passage of the reconciliation measure. They’ll vote on the Rule.

I am not making it up…the very purpose of rules is to enable debate, not to pass bills. And they’ll actually be voting on both the rule and the reconciliation measure. But you can’t have a reconciliation measure without existing law and you can’t have a rule pass a bill without a vote on the actual bill.

You can keep trying to convince yourself that black is white, but the reality is that no matter what you can’t have a bill pass without a bicameral vote on the exact same language. Laws have been tossed out because of things like this. I’m sorry if that disappoints you, but then the law is funny like that…tends to disappoint the “ends justify the means” crowd…

If this thing is going to pass and we can’t stop it… I hope they use all kinds of unconstitutional ways to get it done. That way maybe we can get some kind of ruling from the Courts to have it over turned before the taxes start.

I can’t club you over the head with the facts any more. You can continue your ill-educated pie-in-the-sky chest beating, and I’ll leave you to it.

Continue on with your fanatical ravings about things that aren’t in the Constitution, and aren’t really even implied, if you’re intellectually honest at all.

The Congress sets its own rules. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution. If the House wants to make a rule that the winner of the Congressional tickle fight or snorkeling contest gets to determine what bills get passed, well, they can. If they want to make a rule that passes a bill, they can.

There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that provides for separate and discrete consideration of each measure brought before it.

Oh, and as for the cute little ad hominem you employed calling me a “Ronulan,” I’m not. I think Paul has some valid points, but he’s a nutbar about national security and financial issues.

I am, however, in favor of a literal reading and interpretation of our founding document. Anything less just makes you one of the “living documen” fascists that think it can be shaped and molded to fit the whim of the populace.

I can’t club you over the head with the facts any more. You can continue your ill-educated pie-in-the-sky chest beating, and I’ll leave you to it.

Your “facts” are that a bill can pass without a vote on it. And considering back on page one that you said you aren’t a Conlaw expert, I’d say your attempt at insult falls flat. That you’re seriously arguing this is more than a little troubling, both for a supposedly “educated” person as well as the state of the schools in 21st century America.

Continue on with your fanatical ravings about things that aren’t in the Constitution, and aren’t really even implied, if you’re intellectually honest at all.

Fanatical? I’m not the guy suggesting that a bill can pass without a vote on it with little more than pipe dreams to support the argument. And now that you’re going the “not even implied” route betrays your ignorance on the subject.

The Congress sets its own rules. This is explicitly stated in the Constitution. If the House wants to make a rule that the winner of the Congressional tickle fight or snorkeling contest gets to determine what bills get passed, well, they can. If they want to make a rule that passes a bill, they can.

Um, no they can’t because the rules are of the proceedings, not of the passage of bills. Proceedings means debates and the *how* of bills coming to the floor for a vote…not to remove the Constitutional requirement for a vote on a bill. The Constitution is quite clear on making the distinction of “Bill.”

There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that provides for separate and discrete consideration of each measure brought before it.

It’s called a “Bill.” A rules resolution is not a bill. It’s a rule.

Oh, and as for the cute little ad hominem you employed calling me a “Ronulan,” I’m not. I think Paul has some valid points, but he’s a nutbar about national security and financial issues.

Given your bleating about the lack of specific contemporary language in the Constitution instead of being able to apply original intent does give you Ronulan reasoning skills with regard to the document.

I am, however, in favor of a literal reading and interpretation of our founding document. Anything less just makes you one of the “living documen” fascists that think it can be shaped and molded to fit the whim of the populace.

There’s literal and then there’s hyperliteral. But let’s review:

On my side I have Mark Levin, the Parliamentarians of the Senate and House, the Volokhs, Glenn Reynolds, other leading ConLaw authorities, stare decisis, and the very plain meaning and intent of the document itself. On your side you have Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Yeah, sure is a winning hand you have there.

And calling me a fascist…that’s rich. That word does not mean what you think it means. Requiring a direct vote on a bill to pass it is hardly “fascist.” On the other hand, letting the Congress make up things as it goes along in a Persian Bazaar manner and in direct violation of Constitutional requirements and powers…well, there’s a word for that too. :)

In order to get out of the no-win situation, why *wouldn’t* House Dems do something blatantly illegal and obviously unconstiutional? That way they get credit for “trying,” soft-headed dupes figure they did their best, and when it gets immediately overturned by the SCOTUS for the retardedness of thinking a bill can become law without a vote on it, Obama can get up there and further politicize the relationship between the Legislative/Executive branch and the Judicial. Then the SCOTUS takes the heat instead of the House doing something stupid.

What’s kind of disturbing is how eager a number of people are willing to enable the House to even consider this. That is more of a “living document meaning whatever the Hell we want it to mean” viewpoint than insisting on law and precedent with 220+ years of grounding.

I have much enjoyed your discourse this evening. I am deciding this debate in your favor. Any other day I would have shook my head and declared wv619 a babbling liberal idiot. However, I am hoping the strength of your argument had some meaning for the 80% of hotair that are merely ghosts.